Locavorism is Great But Leave Out the Animal ProductsAn Animal Rights Article from All-Creatures.org

FROM

It is precisely this need for more grasslands for beef
production that has caused so much of the South American rainforest to be
destroyed.

The same scenario would be played out if locavorism takes a firm foothold in
the U.S. No matter what size of farm is involved, more cleared land would be
needed to satisfy the free-range aspect, and more feed and water. The more
land the farmer takes, the less land is available for wildlife.

From the UN report: “Only 3% of the beef produced in
the U.S. is grass-fed, and already, thousands of wild horses are displaced
by this relatively small number of cattle.”

The
intention to “eat healthy” has been a popular topic of conversation for some
years now, providing fodder for countless magazine articles and TV talk
shows. Nutritionists, diet gurus, and self-appointed experts of every stripe
have served up their opinions to a hungry public, sure that their alleged
latest findings are gospel. However, as with any complex issue that gets
popularized in the media, not all theories are equal, and substantive facts
can easily be lost amidst the hoopla.

“Organic” food is often preferred by the health-conscious consumer, both for
the sake of their own health and because it is believed to be better for the
environment generally. It is well-known that the myriad chemicals used on
the vast majority of produce, both in the U.S. and abroad, are poisoning
soil, water, and the produce itself. And since bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (“mad cow disease”) hit the news a decade ago, the public has
become aware that some farmers added very unsavory ingredients to their
feed. Cardboard, Styrofoam, and even animal by-products were found in cattle
and chicken feed.

Not to mention the cocktail of drugs; antibiotics have been a special
concern as it became known that useful human medicines may no longer work
for us because of over-exposure to them through our meat-based food sources,
and water supply.

Giant agribusiness has been rightly criticized because of such crimes
against nature. In an effort to get back to more “natural” farming
practices, smaller-scale operations have sprung up in every state, promising
that their produce is treated only with organic pesticides and their animals
are fed only vegetarian diets. Because organic food is produced in smaller
quantities, it is more expensive than the mass-produced variety, but for
those who can afford it, it seems like the right thing to do, for our health
and for the planet.

Now going hand in hand with the organic food movement, there is a more
recent trend among the environmentally concerned, called “locavorism.” People being conscientious in their eating habits tout the notion of locally grown food
as being superior to that which is trucked across country or imported from
other nations. The reasoning sounds sensible: More fuel is expended in shipping produce to the Northeast, say, from Chile, China, or even just California,
than from local or near-local farms. Plus, fruit and vegetables coming from
a longer way off are often coated with preservatives to protect them during
the long voyage, thus adding another possibly toxic chemical to our food.
Getting our greens from nearby usually means fewer unwanted additives. And
as for meat or dairy products, freshness and the assurance of non-toxic feed
also seems more likely if the animal was raised and slaughtered at nearby
ranches. Some canny farmers even invite the public to visit on occasion, so
they can see for themselves that their animals are living cage-free and
free-range - a tactic perhaps meant to impart a warm, fuzzy feeling about
the animals' lives, and draw a veil over the fact of their inevitable death.

Surely it is better for our health and our consciences, environmentalists
argue, if we eat products grown or raised nearby, including meat derived
from animals who are kindly treated, live cage-free in wide-open, natural environments, and eat healthful, species-appropriate food.
Yet what’s not being taken into account is the harm to the
environment, wildlife, and people, caused by local ranching.

Environmentalism and Locavore Animal Products Are Not Compatible

One of the main arguments against locally raised meat with free-range
livestock is insufficient land.

“There isn’t enough available land on earth to raise all livestock
free-range or cage-free,” according to a United Nations report. “Livestock
now use 30 per cent of the earth’s entire land surface, mostly permanent
pasture but also including 33 per cent of the global arable land used to
produce feed for livestock.”

Many people have an image of small-scale, local ranches as having “happy,”
roaming cows and other animals. However, if factory farming of grazing
animals changed overnight to free-range, pasture feeding methods,
exponentially more land would be required than is now used.

Besides the need for massive open space inherent in this Utopian tableau, much more
food and water would be necessary due to the increased exercise the animals
would begetting.

It is precisely this need for more grasslands for beef production that has caused so much of the South
American rainforest to be destroyed.

The same scenario would be played out if locavorism takes a firm foothold in the U.S.
No matter what size of farm is involved, more cleared land would be needed to
satisfy the free-range aspect, and more feed and water as explained above.
The more land the farmer takes, the less land is available for wildlife.

From the UN report: “Only 3% of the beef produced in the U.S. is grass-fed,
and already, thousands of wild horses are displaced by this relatively small
number of cattle.”

“Food Miles”

In his book, The Locavore Myth, author James McWilliams points out that
transportation is responsible for only 11% of our food’s carbon footprint,
whereas,

...The average American eats 273 pounds of meat a year....Give
up red meat once a week and you’ll save as much energy as if the only food
miles in your diet were the distance to the nearest truck farmer. If you
want to make a statement, ride your bike to the farmer’s market. If you want
to reduce greenhouse gases, become a vegetarian.

And Doris Lin, animal rights attorney and member of the Steering Committee
of League of Humane Voters, NJ, writes, “All things being equal, eating
locally is better than eating food that has to be transported thousands of
miles, but the environmental advantages of locavorism pale in comparison
with those of going vegan. One can choose to be an organic, vegan locavore
to reap the environmental benefits of all three concepts. They are not
mutually exclusive.”

Finally, whether the animals one eats grew up in Argentina, Australia, or in
a field across the road, Tara Garnett of the Food Climate Research Network,
asserts:

There is only one way of being sure that you cut down on
your carbon emissions when buying food: stop eating meat, milk, butter and
cheese.....These come from ruminants - sheep and cattle - that produce a
great deal of harmful methane. In other words, it is not only the source of
the food that matters but the kind of food you eat.

Given all the clear drawbacks to raising animals for their meat, whether in
the blatantly cruel factory-farming way, or in the arguably somewhat more
humane locavore and free-range manner, it is obvious that the only truly
environmentally-conscious choice is to stop raising animals for slaughter.

We would be saving wildlife habitat – and thereby, numerous species from
extinction – as well as restoring the forests that are so essential to
combating disastrous climate change.

And, not inconsequentially, we would be sparing billions upon billions of innocent animals
from lives of suffering. Plus, saving the consumers of animal products from
disease, and avoiding unnecessary widespread starvation by not using
valuable grain and farmland to feed animals that produce only a fraction of
the food for the world. These are just a few of the problems of a meat-based diet.

Fair Use Notice: This document, and others on our web site, may contain copyrighted
material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners.
We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use
of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use,
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.